ARCHIVED - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section 2: Analysis of Program Activities by Strategic Outcome

This section provides detailed performance information on the stated plans and expected results presented in the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities. The detailed information is based on the IRB's TBS-approved PAA and MRRS.

In 2006-2007 the IRB refined the performance measurement framework associated with its PAA. The framework is supporting the IRB in its efforts to develop common tribunal performance standards and selected performance indicators, which are presented in this section for the IRB's strategic outcome as well as for the IRB's three decision-making program activities.

The 2006-2007 IRB Departmental Performance Report marks the first time that the IRB uses the complete performance measurement framework to report on its outcomes. The IRB ensures it is focused on results, delivers value for money, is consistent with federal priorities, and continues to serve the purpose and mandate for which it was created.

In 2007-2008 the IRB will update its PAA and corresponding performance management framework by rolling up the current sub-program and sub sub-program activities into its program activities. This will produce a streamlined and efficient MRRS/PAA for the IRB that will more fully comply with TBS requirements.

Common Elements

The IRB Departmental Performance Report and the IRB Report on Plans and Priorities are based on the plans and expected results presented in an annually developed IRB Integrated Business Plan. A key part of both reports is the identification of the plans and expected results of the initiatives that are common to all three decision-making program activities, which contribute primarily to the achievement of the IRB's first two strategic priorities. These plans and results are presented in the table below.

Performance Highlights and Results

Key highlights of the common activities for 2006-2007 include completion and release of major policies and/or guidelines, reporting of key performance measures, development of competency profiles for tribunal support personnel, redeployment of decision-makers, including cross-training, and an integrated international program.

Table 2.1: Common Elements Plans and Results

Common Elements: Plans and Results for 2006-2007
STRATEGIC OUTCOME: Provide Canadians with well-reasoned, timely decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY Integrate common procedural, administrative and adjudicative activities in all divisions to further promote quality, consistency and efficiency measures
Plans	Results
Policy Instruments and Procedures
Develop policies and procedures on dealing with Vulnerable Persons	Guideline 8 and the accompanying procedures were completed and implemented Training on Guideline 8 was delivered to all decision-makers and implicated staff in each of the IRB's three divisions, ensuring a consistent understanding of the instrument
Develop a standardized approach to how the IRB deals with cases involving non-disclosure of information (Section 86 cases)	The Policy on the Treatment of Applications for Non Disclosure of Information was released; it outlines the principles governing the treatment of applications for non disclosure of information further to Section 86 of the IRPA
Develop an IRB detention/security framework and implement selected elements across the divisions	Work on the IRB Detention Framework was deferred to 2007-2008 because of competing policy priorities
Initiate the development of a common/shared policy on the use of videoconferencing	Work on an integrated videoconferencing policy was deferred to 2007-2008 because of competing policy priorities
Performance Measures
Initiate a standardized approach to present IRB performance indicators, including meaningful cross-divisional indicators, both quantitative and qualitative	A common look and feel approach to the standardized reports for the ID and the IAD was developed and implemented by Standards, Analysis and Monitoring; work remained ongoing on the RPD reports
STRATEGIC PRIORITY Continue to build an organizational culture that supports its people, and is flexible and innovative
Plans	Results
Adjudicative Culture
Develop and implement IRB common guidelines and procedures on how to interface and deal with counsel conduct	Work is in progress on a Policy for Handling IRB Complaints Regarding Unauthorized, Paid Representatives
Continue to implement a competency-based HR management strategy across the IRB, including developing competency profiles for functional groups and tools to support their use	A competency-based HR management strategy is in place and new profiles have been developed: four new competency profiles were created for the Tribunal Officer, Senior Manager, Middle Manager and Supervisor roles Management is equipped with the tools needed to use the competency-based profiles A competency evaluation tool for the Tribunal Officer role was created
Implement a policy on redeployment between the RPD and the IAD allowing increased mobility between divisions	Increased mobility between divisions and flexibility in workload planning was realized Operational demand and expertise continued to drive redeployments Spikes in workflow were mitigated by the movement of decision-makers between divisions (IAD/RPD) and the extension of the mandates of 10-year members on a case-by-case basis
Introduce cross-training between divisions and joint training and professional development where appropriate	Joint training for the IRB divisions is in place Implementation of the Western Region Integration Initiative, which will enable IAD and RPD members to hold hearings in both divisions
Provide strategic communications advice and information that reflect changes to procedural, administrative and adjudicative activities	Provided effective and timely communications advice and information to foster greater understanding of changes within the IRB The IRB participated in and/or organized 25 key outreach activities Greater and more timely information sharing made possible through the effective use of the IRB intranet; steady increase in the use of the site, with new publishers in every branch and division trained
International
Within the International Program, divisions and Operations, define respective international priorities	Resources were allocated to 29 strategically significant international engagements which brought tangible benefit for the IRB Each international event in which the IRB took part was an opportunity to learn from partners' best practices and/or showcase IRB expertise as a leading-edge administrative tribunal. Notably, Guideline 8, issued in December 2006, generated much interest among the IRB's international partners
Coordinate international conference participation	The IRB maintained its participation in international activities by monitoring developments and trends in the fields of immigration and refugee protection, holding regular exchanges with its international partners and securing appropriate representation at international events The IRB improved the horizontal coordination of its international engagement by establishing an International Liaison Section in 2006-2007 and adopting well-defined objectives, guidelines and annual directions on international event participation

The IRB Integrated Business Plan also identifies the plans, expected results and operations that are distinct to each program activity and that contribute to achieving the IRB's strategic priorities for 2006-2007. These are highlighted in the following detailed analyses of the IRB's three decision-making program activities. The detailed analysis for the Corporate Management and Services program activity is presented in Section 4.

---

Refugee Protection Program Activity

The Refugee Protection Division is respected internationally for having one of the finest refugee determination systems in the world. Over the past year, we implemented important and innovative improvements to foster consistency and quality in procedures and decision-making. Ken Sandhu Deputy Chairperson

The Refugee Protection Division delivers the IRB's Refugee Protection program activity and plays a pivotal role in enabling the Board to achieve its strategic priorities and strategic outcome. A major share of IRB resources is committed to this program activity, which is focused on rendering quality decisions in a consistent, timely manner on refugee protection claims made in Canada.

Performance Measurements and Indicators

Table 2.2: Refugee Protection Program Activity Total Financial and Human Resources

Financial Resources ($ millions)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
86.4	86.3	81.4
Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned	Actual	Difference
825	706	(119)

Performance Highlights and Results

In its ongoing quest for quality and consistency in decision-making, the rpd focused on training its members on country conditions and legal issues prevailing in its top producing countries while strengthening its streamlining directions to better respond to changing claim type trends. Throughout 2006-2007, the RPD continued to render well-reasoned decisions on refugee matters despite the loss of a very large number of experienced members.

Table 2.3: Refugee Protection Program Activity Plans and Results

STRATEGIC OUTCOME: Provide Canadians with well-reasoned, timely decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY Integrate common procedural, administrative and adjudicative activities in all divisions to further promote quality, consistency and efficiency measures
Plans	Results
Distinct Elements and Tribunal Values
Further monitor the RPD Action Plan in order to ensure implementation	A National Streamlining Conference was held after which new streaming directions were issued Quality Issue Sessions were held on Mexico and Sri Lanka in which determinative issues for those two countries were reviewed on a national basis
Pursue measures to further streamline RPD processes	Launched two innovative pilot projects on: Simplified Information Gathering Language Analysis
Further reduce pending inventory, processing times and cost by claim by monitoring and expanding the Fast Track Initiative, by reducing adjournments and postponements and through more sophisticated streamlining	Adjustments to streamlining directions were put into effect to respond to changing claim type trends Capacity to reduce inventory was compromised by the decline in the number of members available
Continue to implement and monitor the strategic approach to quality decision-making through quality issue sessions, discussion groups, additional National Documentation Packages (NDPs), Jurisprudential Guides and Persuasive Decisions, as needed, and Guideline 8	NDPs for the RPD's top 20 source countries were maintained; most of the NDP content on the remaining countries in the Division's inventory (approx. 162 countries) was determined; 34 additional NDPs were published by year end; publication for the remaining 128 packages was underway by year end, to be concluded in early 2007-2008 Chairperson's Guideline 8 was issued Two Quality Issue Sessions were held Discussion Groups were held on country conditions in Iran and Bangladesh
Facilitate the process for making appointments and reappointments in a timely way	The RPD worked with the IRB GIC Secretariat to review and assess the member complement needs; the member shortfall remained significant with only 75 actual members at year-end, while initial 2006-2007 forecasts were based on a 119 member complement for the RPD
Develop and deliver training on various topics including state protection, delivery of reasons, exclusion and Guideline 8	Decision-makers equipped with the knowledge and skills to deliver effective and sound decisions, to apply the concepts of state protection to their decision-making, and to enhance their sensitivities towards vulnerable persons appearing before them; legal challenges on these bases were minimized
Review and deliver new member training and deliver focused training for experienced members in all areas identified by the RPD	New decision-makers equipped with the knowledge and skills to perform duties; experienced members equipped with the knowledge and skills in all areas identified by the RPD
STRATEGIC PRIORITY Improve case management processes through the successful implementation of ICMS
Plans	Results
ICMS Operations
Development and implementation of Release 4	ICMS Stage 1 (Release 4.0) was implemented on April 2, 2007 A change management workshop was given to ICMS trainers, members, coordinators and regional managers The Operations Branch acquired the capacity to support ICMS and the IRB user community
Delivery of required training and simulation exercise	Training of all end users, including key members of the RPD decision-maker community, was delivered in time for and after implementation Simulation work complemented training exercises
Post-implementation evaluation focusing on "lessons learned" carried out	Carried over to 2007-2008

Quality Decisions

The 2006-2007 performance indicators for the Refugee Protection program activity are presented in the following table.

Table 2.4: Refugee Protection Program Activity Performance Indicators

Results	Indicators	Target	Actual Value
Decisions are rendered in accordance with the law	Number and nature of complaints made and determined to be founded or founded in part	Stability or downward trend as % of total decisions rendered	7 filed and 0 founded
	Number of leaves to seek judicial review granted by the court	<1% of total decisions rendered	<1%
Fair and quality decisions	Competency of decision makers	Competency of all new members assessed	All new members assessed
	Consistency variance rate at the IRB by types of cases in top countries	<30% variance rate	<30%
	Consistency variance rate by country for each IRB region	<30% variance rate	<30%

Key Outputs

The outputs for the Refugee Protection program activity are as follows:

• Claims referred
• Claims finalized
• Claims waiting
• Average processing time
• Average cost per claim finalized

Claims referred

Figure 2.1: Refugee Protection Claims Referred

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

^*"2006-2007 RPP" refers to the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities.

Mexico was the top source country in 2006-2007 with 5,490 claims referred; China was second, far behind Mexico, with 1,700 claims; and Colombia was third with 1,450 claims. Mexico accounted for 23% of all claims referred in 2006-2007, 43% above the number of claims referred in 2005-2006; this source country is the principal reason for the overall increase in referrals.

Claims finalized

Figure 2.2: Refugee Protection Claims Finalized

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

The shortfall in finalizations is attributed to the fact that fewer decision-makers were appointed and reappointed than originally anticipated.

Claims waiting

Figure 2.3: Refugee Protection Claims Waiting

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

The shortfall in finalizations and associated growth in the RPD's pending inventory is attributed to the lower number of decision-makers than originally anticipated. Sixty-six percent of claims waiting were nine months old or less by year end.

Average processing time

The average processing time was 11.9 months, down slightly from 12.1 months in 2005-2006 and 13.6 months in 2004-2005, but more than the forecast of 11.0 months in the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities. The higher than expected average processing time was due primarily to the lower number of decision-makers than originally anticipated.

Average cost per claim finalized

The average cost per claim for 2006-2007 was $4,117 compared with $3,175 in 2005-2006. Unit costs per claim ranged from $1,600 for an expedited case to $5,700 for complex cases.

The increase in the average cost per claim is attributable to several factors including a higher share of fixed costs per unit caused by a drop in the overall IRB volume, transition costs associated with adjusting staffing levels in line with reduced business volumes, increased salary costs as a result of collective agreements and a slightly larger share of claims finalized with written decisions.

The actual cost per claim is higher than the forecasted average cost of $3,500 as reported in the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities because of the factors noted above. The forecasted average cost of $3,500 was based on 22,500 projected claim finalizations while actual claims finalized were 17,300.

The cost per claim includes the decision-making costs and the costs of related activities such as case preparation, research, scheduling of hearings, legal services, foreign-language interpretation, technological support, translation services and administrative support, but it excludes extraordinary costs such as the ICMS project development costs. It also includes a share of the costs from the Corporate Management and Services program activity, which is allocated to the three decision making program activities, based on expenditure trends.

(Click on image to enlarge)

---

Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews Program Activity

2006-2007 was a year of transition for the Immigration Division. Measures were put in place to maintain both the quality of decisions and efficiency in our work in readiness for the departure of a number of long-serving, experienced members and the arrival of new members to replace them. Ghislaine Charlebois Director General

The Immigration Division, whose members are public servants, delivers the IRB's Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews program activity. Admissibility hearings are held for foreign nationals or permanent residents who are alleged to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to the provisions of the IRPA. Detention reviews are held concerning permanent residents and foreign nationals who are detained under the IRPA authority. Detainees must be seen by the Division within 48 hours and subsequent reviews must be conducted within specific timeframes set out in the IRPA. Decision-makers must balance the rights of individuals to liberty with the security interests of Canadians and persons in Canada. The number of admissibility hearings and detention reviews conducted by the IRB depends on the number of cases referred to it by the CBSA and CIC.

Performance Measurements and Indicators

Table 2.5: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews Program Activity Financial and Human Resources

Financial Resources ($ millions)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
15.2	15.5	12.2
Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned	Actual	Difference
90	92	2

Performance Highlights and Results

Over the course of 2006-2007 the admissibility hearings and detention reviews program activity coped with an increase in referrals for both admissibility hearings and detention reviews. The members of the division concluded 17% more admissibility hearings and 24% more detention reviews than in 2005-2006.

Table 2.6: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews Program Activity Plans and Results

STRATEGIC OUTCOME: Provide Canadians with well-reasoned, timely decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY Integrate common procedural, administrative and adjudicative activities in all divisions to further promote quality, consistency and efficiency measures
Plans	Results
Distinct Elements and Tribunal Values
Develop harmonized and informal processes to help meet the legislative timeframes and operational requirements to achieve finalization of all cases referred by the CBSA and CIC	Progress achieved in case management efficiency and consistency at the regional level; at the national level, key elements were identified for improvement with respect to standardizing processes and adopting a cross-regional consistency approach
Building on the best business practices of the IRB, introduce and implement in the ID innovative approaches to its processes	In preparation for the implementation of innovative processes to improve efficiency and productivity, a thorough study was conducted on the use of videoconferencing within the ID; it constitutes a solid background document for the development of a Board-wide policy on the use of this technology
Further develop, maintain and promote tools that will support quality, consistency and efficiency in decision-making in the areas of ethics, communications, quality control and service delivery	Cases were dealt with more simply, quickly and efficiently in accordance with legislative requirements: Close to 100% of all finalizations meet the legal time frame for conducting detention reviews More streamlined process for admissibility hearings; completed preparatory work to deal with simple cases through a simplified paper hearing process; a pilot was launched on April 1, 2007 Increased sharing of best practices among regions and decision-makers through a brainstorming exercise, the members' forum and national training sessions Completed the development of a pilot for the simplified paper hearing process Increased visibility of the ID through participation in internal, national and international conferences, which helps promote the ID's best practices and supports the professional development of its members
Continue to monitor retirements in order to identify staffing requirements	Achieved more flexibility in assigning cases to members Hired five new members to replace members who were retiring; this recruitment is part of the ID's efforts to integrate new decision-makers over the next two years, resulting in seamless succession, fully qualified members and an associated knowledge base available on a continuous basis
Deliver focused and quality training on an ongoing basis in order to meet ID members' specific training needs and address emerging issues (including terrorism, organized crime, etc.)	Focused training was developed and delivered on terrorism and organized crime Better identification of emerging issues in order to improve the planning of impacts on operations and the development of a more focused training plan
Continue to implement learning culture and develop training tools	Expertise maintained on key recurrent and thematic issues as demonstrated by the continued coverage and depth of knowledge within the ID (no knowledge gaps across the ID); training opportunities included national training sessions, member participation in the Immigration Division Professional Development Committee and in professional development conferences

Quality Decisions

The 2006-2007 performance indicators for the Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews program activity are presented in the following table.

Table 2.7: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews Program Activity Performance Indicators

Results	Indicators	Target	Actual Value
Decisions are rendered in accordance with the law	Extent to which independent internal reviewers determine that decisions made are in accordance with related legislation and jurisprudence	Develop and pilot	Not available
	Number of leaves for judicial review granted	<1% of total decisions rendered	<1%
Fair and quality decisions	Extent to which independent internal reviewers report that decisions are coherent	Develop and pilot	Not available
	Competency of decision makers	Competency of all new members assessed upon appointment; yearly thereafter	100% of new hires meet minimum requirements and benchmarks established (five new members)

Key Outputs

The outputs for the Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews program activity are as follows

• Admissibility hearings finalized
• Detention reviews finalized
• Average cost per admissibility hearing finalized
• Average cost per detention review finalized

Admissiblity Hearings finalized

Figure 2.5: Admissibility Hearings Finalized

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

Outcome of decisions:

• 71% resulted in a removal order being issued because the person was determined inadmissible
• 2% resulted in permission to enter or to remain in Canada
• 7% were subject to the withdrawal of the inadmissibility allegation by the CBSA at the hearing
• 20% of persons who received a notice to appear at their hearing failed to appear and the case was closed

Detention Reviews finalized

Figure 2.6: Detention Reviews Finalized

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

The 33% variance between the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities forecast and the actual number of detention reviews that were finalized is attributable mainly to changes in the case management process. These changes resulted in the inclusion of cases resolved without a decision in the total number of actual detention review finalizations.

3,634 detention reviews were finalized without a decision because the case was rescheduled or the person had been removed, released or detained by the courts prior to a scheduled review. 11,626 detention reviews were finalized with a decision.

Outcome of detention reviews finalized with a decision:

• 74% resulted in continued detention
• 18% resulted in an order for release on terms and conditions subject to bond^*
• 5% resulted in an order for release on terms and conditions not subject to bond^*
• 3% resulted in other decisions (e.g., change in conditions)

^* Note: In 2006-2007 the ID began reporting on two types of orders for release on terms and conditions.

Average cost per admissibility hearing and detention review finalized

The average cost per admissibility hearing finalized was $1,133 and the average cost per detention review finalized was $751. These costs are slightly higher than the 2005-2006 average costs of $1,015 for an admissibility hearing and $710 for a detention review. The increase in average costs is mainly attributable to higher salary costs and a higher share of fixed costs per unit caused by a drop in the overall IRB volume. In the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities, the forecasted cost per admissibility hearing was $1,100 and $800 per detention review.

The cost per admissibility hearing and detention review includes the decision making costs and the costs of related activities such as case preparation, scheduling of hearings, legal services, foreign-language interpretation, technological support, translation services, transcribing services and administrative support. It also includes a share of the costs from the Corporate Management and Services program activity, which is allocated to the three decision-making program activities, based on expenditure trends.

Figure 2.7: Admissibility Hearings Master Graph

(Click on image to enlarge)

Figure 2.8: Detention Review Master Graph

(Click on image to enlarge)

---

Immigration Appeal Program Activity

The Immigration Appeal Division achieved record high productivity in 2006-2007 thanks to the efforts of our members and public service employees. The ongoing implementation of IAD Innovation initiatives ensures that we can continue to deliver a high quality of justice simply, quickly and fairly. Shari Stein Deputy Chairperson

The Immigration Appeal Division delivers the IRB's Immigration Appeal program activity. It hears immigration appeals from Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose applications to sponsor close family members to Canada have been refused. Other key functions include hearing appeals from permanent residents, foreign nationals with a permanent resident visa, protected persons who have been ordered removed from Canada and permanent residents outside of Canada who have not fulfilled their residency obligation.

Performance Measurements and Indicators

Table 2.8: Admissibility Hearings and Detention Reviews Program Activity Financial and Human Resources

Financial Resources ($ millions)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
15.2	17.5	16.8
Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned	Actual	Difference
135	144	9

Performance Highlights and Results

2006-2007 was a year of transformation for the IAD. Improvements in case management and adjudicative support were achieved through the continued implementation of the iad innovation initiative, which included expanded streaming of appeals into the appropriate case processes and the transition of the alternative dispute resolution program to tribunal officers who are public service employees. These changes increased the capacity of IAD members to focus on hearing and deciding more appeals. As a result, the division achieved a record-high number of appeal finalizations despite a shortfall in members.

Table 2.9: Immigration Appeal Program Activity Plans and Results

STRATEGIC OUTCOME: Provide Canadians with well-reasoned, timely decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY Integrate common procedural, administrative and adjudicative activities in all divisions to further promote quality, consistency and efficiency measures
Plans	Results
Distinct Elements and Tribunal Values
Ensure the implementation of major transformation through IAD Innovation; this initiative is ongoing and is expected to lead to significant changes to IAD's case processes and hearings	Public service employee teams and appropriate tools put in place to provide support to the IAD through streaming, early resolution and hearing readiness efforts Public service employees assumed responsibility for the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program, allowing members to focus on those appeals that must proceed to a hearing to be resolved Liaison with CIC and the CBSA remained ongoing regarding the earlier receipt of the appeal record from CIC overseas and the participation of the Minister's counsel in early informal resolution
Review ADR practices and procedures and case selection	New ADR case selection criteria were developed at the same time as the comprehensive streaming criteria for the IAD's caseload The IAD met its ADR target of 50% for national resolutions
Expand and improve early review process	The IAD's Early Review process was expanded as part of the IAD's new Early Informal Resolution initiative
Facilitate the process for making appointments and reappointments in a timely way	The IAD worked with the IRB GIC Secretariat to review and assess the member complement needs; the member shortfall remained significant with only 26 members at year end, while initial 2006-2007 forecasts were based on a 37-member complement for the IAD
Develop innovative approach to obtain more information from both parties earlier to support earlier screening, streaming and resolution	A series of tools was developed and implemented to support the earlier gathering of information and early informal resolution (EIR), including a comprehensive streaming criteria document and an expanded series of EIR letters Work remains ongoing on an EIR policy that will provide Tribunal Officers with guidance on EIR
Ensure that members take more proactive control of the hearing process	Training of members in conducting proactive hearings started in December 2006 with the IAD National Training Session; this work remained ongoing at year end
Analyze nature and scope of adjournments and postponements and develop action plans to reduce the postponement/adjournment rate	Adjournment and postponement rates decreased only in some regions (particularly the Western Region), but remained high in the Central Region because of a lack of members
Review ADR in-house training	Work began to define an in-house ADR training curriculum for public service employee Dispute Resolution Officers; three training sessions were held
Develop customized training plan for new members (if necessary)	Comprehensive new member training was delivered twice, with the curriculum adapted to reflect new integrated approach; plans were made for training RPD members in IAD matters as part of the Western Region Integration Initiative

Quality Decisions

The 2006-2007 performance indicators for the Immigration Appeal program activity are presented in the following table.

Table 2.10: Immigration Appeal Program Activity Performance Indicators

Results	Indicators	Target	Actual Value
Decisions are rendered in accordance with the law	Extent to which independent internal reviewers determine that decisions made are in accordance with related legislation and jurisprudence	Decline in number of decisions that raise legal concerns	Unknown
	Number of leaves for judicial review granted by the Federal Court; and number of IAD decisions overturned	<1%	<1%
Fair and quality decisions	Extent to which internal independent reviewers determine that decisions and reasons meet quality standards (well-reasoned, well-written and understandable)	Decline in number of decisions and reasons that fail to meet quality standards	Unknown (quality standards not yet established)
	Competency levels and appraisals of decision makers	All members are assessed as competent; increase in performance appraisal ratings	Unknown
	Extent to which external feedback indicates the processes are fair, accessible, transparent and efficient	Increase in positive external feedback	Unknown

Key Outputs

The outputs for the Immigration Appeal program activity are as follows

• Appeals filed
• Appeals finalized
• Appeals waiting
• Average processing time
• Average cost per appeal finalized

Appeals filed

Figure 2.9: Immigration Appeals Filed

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

The number of filed appeals remained high because of an increase in sponsorship appeals, which comprise an increasing proportion of the IAD caseload.

Appeals finalized

Figure 2.10: Immigration Appeals Finalized

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

The 6,300 appeals finalized in 2006-2007 is the highest number of immigration appeals finalized in a given year in the history of the IAD. Contributing to this increased level of performance was the continued high productivity of members and the transition of the ADR program to the public service. The latter activity, which saw public service employee Dispute Resolution Officers in place in most regions by the final quarter of the year, enabled available members to focus solely on deciding those appeals that must proceed to a hearing for resolution.

The increased and successful use of the ADR program (20% more appeals were resolved through ADR in 2006-2007 than in 2005-2006), early review processes and increased focus on the screening and streaming of cases were key mechanisms by which the IRB managed its immigration appeals caseload-all of which had a positive impact on productivity.

Although the IAD successfully increased its productivity-9% over the previous fiscal year-the IAD fell short by 3% of the finalization forecast in the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities. This shortfall was due largely to the fact that the IAD did not see an increase in its member complement, an assumption on which the forecast was initially based. Delays in appointments and reappointments in all regions contributed to the shortfall in finalizations. The forecasts in the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities were based on a member complement for the IAD of more than 37 members, but the Division's complement declined from 32 members early in the fiscal year to 26 by March 2007.

Outcome of decisions:

• 43% were allowed and 31% were dismissed
• 26% were withdrawn by the appellant or declared abandoned by the IRB

Appeals waiting

Figure 2.11: Immigration Appeals Waiting

(Click on image to enlarge)

Note: The numbers have been rounded off to the nearest hundred.

The increase is a direct result of the number of appeals filed exceeding the number of appeals finalized for a fifth consecutive year; however, the proportion of appeals finalized to appeals filed increased to 93% in 2006-2007 from 86% in 2005-2006.

Average processing time

The average processing time increased by 8% to 9.9 months in 2006-2007 compared to 9.2 months in 2005-2006. The increase is due primarily to the fact that the high number of appeals filed continues to exceed the capacity of the IAD to hear and finalize them.

Average cost per appeal finalized

The average cost per finalized appeal for 2006-2007 of $2,260 is slightly higher than the 2005-2006 adjusted actual average cost of $2,130 primarily as a result of a higher share of fixed costs per unit caused by a drop in the overall IRB volume and higher translation costs. Average unit costs per appeal ranged from $2,200 for sponsorship appeals to $2,500 for removal orders and residency obligation appeals.

The average cost per finalized appeal is slightly higher than the forecasted cost of $2,100 as reported in the 2006-2007 IRB Report on Plans and Priorities as a result of higher translation costs and an increased share of infrastructure costs.

The cost per appeal includes decision-making costs and the costs of related activities such as case preparation, research, scheduling of hearings, legal services, foreign language interpretation, technological support, translation services and administrative support, but it excludes extraordinary items such as the IAD Innovation initiative costs. It also includes a share of the costs of the Corporate Management and Services program activity, which is allocated to the three decision making program activities, based on expenditure trends.

Figure 2.12: Immigration Appeal Master Graph

(Click on image to enlarge)

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page